Subject:
|
Re: Freedoms in Libertopia? (was Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:10:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1353 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> I don't have the answer well formed, but suppose that it was possible to
> develop a device that (with no false negatives) could reliably detect
> intoxication and would then not allow the vehicle to be operated. How much
> of a discount would you expect on your auto insurance in exchange for
> agreeing that all your vehicles be equipped with it?
Of course such a device does exist, though I'm not sure how accurate it
is.
> I know that if the device wasn't very expensive to procure, I'd do it for a
> 2 percent or so discount. That's not much of a discount, is it? But then I
> almost never DWI so it would be free money to me.
So would I.
> If roads were privatised, would it be reasonable for a road owner to
> disallow, or to charge significantly higher tolls, to vehicles not so
> equipped? How about if the roads were still public?
With privitized roads, I don't see any problem with the owner putting
any sort of restrictions, including deciding someone looks like a drunk
and getting him off the road. On the other hand, I'm not yet 100%
comfortable with the idea of privitized roads. One problem I see is the
ability of someone to use their property rights to deny someone else
access to the rest of the world. If I own, or can influence the owners
thereof, all of the property surrounding your house, can I prevent you
from leaving, or anyone else from going to your house? Of course an
issue is what are my property rights with respect to the airspace above
my property and what is underground beneath my property. If I don't have
total control of my airspace, your friends can use a helicopter to get
to you (even if your property is so small they can't land, they can
still drop a ladder down). Of course one of the oldest rights recognized
by common law is the right of way, but the question is if this is a
valid right.
On the other hand, I'm not overly worried about the above. The jerk who
tries to use his property rights in such a mean spirited way will
probably find there are lots of things he can't do when large numbers of
people use the same methods to deny him access to goods and services.
On the other hand, I could also see minority enclaves in certain areas
having a bad time when their neighbors decide to close roads etc.
> As a note, I recall seeing my parents old insurance bills having a discount
> because their vehicles all had seat belts (this was a long time ago, 1963
> was the date on the bill, before they were required) and my current bill has
> a discount because one of my vehicles has an anti theft device. That is a
> discount imposed by regulatory agencies. Wouldn't the market do the same,
> though?
I expect so. Any device which is actually effective in reducing
insurance claims will be something it is too the advantage of the
insurance companies to encourage you to use. One measure might be to
examine the resistance to the current regulations. If the insurance
companies didn't put up much of a fight, it's probable that they see the
value (of course they may also be conceding a small point in one area to
win a larger one somewhere else).
> There's a line in here somewhere I haven't pinned down. I'm against a priori
> restraint of things like owning gasoline or guns, but I think I'm for a
> priori restraint of things like driving while too befuddled to stay on one
> side of the road.
I certainly have to say that on the surface I agree, but how do we
distinguish between a priori restraint of behavior for DWI v.s. a priori
restraint of behavior with respect to say guns?
One thing that is clear is that after the fact, we have lots of options.
What we need to do is be more willing to nail the drunk drivers when
they demonstrate clear impairment BEFORE that impairment leads to
property loss. If the guy is weaving all over the road, pull him over,
and if you can find clear evidence that he has done something which is
impairing him, get him off the road. Of course we have to apply this all
over the place. If you make a habit of having heart attacks while
driving, you should lose your license. If you have a habit of falling
asleep while driving, you should lose your license. On the other hand,
it is probably wrong to set up a check point (unless we have privitized
roads in which case it's probably ok), and pull people because they blow
a certain arbitrary alcohol content (I forget where it was that someone
mentioned that in certain states, there is a zero tolerance of alcohol
for under 21 drivers, which can be triggered by such harmfull things
like mouthwash).
Will Libertopia eliminate drunk driving? Probably not. I suspect it will
do a heck of a lot better job than we are doing today though.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
